I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

I suspect you will get degradation over time, just as with any physical scanner/printer combo. There is simply no way to checksum physical prints like you can a digital copy. And even if there were, you would still have to sink the cost of another print.

Cheap personal 3D printers using fused deposition modeling have pretty low resolution. The chunky, gnarly blobs that come out of them look nothing like the scraped and finished products you see in pictures.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

You can run this experiment with a copy machine right now. This is not the replicator.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

You can run this experiment with a copy machine right now. This is not the replicator.

I thought exactly that. Now someone needs to try it and post the count to unreadability.

Does it really FAX? This is the begining of teleportation of real world objects. Of course to create a complex object will require taking it apart so you can scan the components.

The copy of a copy problem is because of resolution and registration. The scanners resolution is limited to some value so you cannot distinguish fine detail. The printer also has a limit on resolution so the copy will have imperfections that were not in the original. This would even be true with the highest resolution scanner and printer - just not as noticable. Note that these erros magnify with each copy, they do not cancel out.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Even if the size of the error is the same in both scanning and printing, it would be too unlikely that each scanning error in one direction away from the original shape would be offset by a printing error of equal magnitude and opposite direction. Essentially, for each surface point there would be a random walk consisting of random small steps in either direction. Random walks over time produce an average net distance that is proportional to the mean error and the square root of the number of steps. I guess, the square root of 20 is somewhere between 4 and 5, which would not be that large.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Why would they cancel out? Small printing errors and small scanning errors will just add up to lots of errors. It's just like faxing a document back and forth a dozen times.

Fortunately, scanning will produce digital files that can be stored and copied losslessly as many times as you like - you can make as many copies as you like with just one generation of scanning+printing error.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Printerception!

It'll be a blob, but you'll be able to make someone else think its theirs.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Cheap personal 3D printers using fused deposition modeling have pretty low resolution. The chunky, gnarly blobs that come out of them look nothing like the scraped and finished products you see in pictures.

In this case the bigger problem is the scanner, which will almost certainly have worse resolution than the printer itself.

And I would guess that the majority of photos on Thingiverse (and even in the recent Ars story) are straight out of the printer, with little to no finish work done. Especially if you print without rafts or support, it usually isn't necessary to do anything beyond prying it off the print bed.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Under what conditions would you want to make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.... ?

Would you not have a 'master copy' then produce each copy from that 'master copy' directly?

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

I think you would only lose quality down to whichever resolution is lowest between the printer or the scanner, after which each successive object would be identical.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Didn't you see Multiplicity. =) I would hope they employ some type or error correction. Of course there will be some will have random mutations. I expect the ones that are more successful in their environment will breed on more successfully while the in-viable ones will die off.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Why in the world would you do that? It's not an analog copy machine, it's a digital copy machine. It takes the image once and stores it, then you can use it again and again. Isn't it obvious?

I'm pretty convinced the future of 3D printing is the same as photo printing. For a few years everyone wanted a photo printer at home. But then you realized the ink costs were insane and the quality wasn't as good, so now everyone gets their photos at Costco/Sams Club for far less.

I expect the same thing here -- Amazon, Target, and others will buy $150K 3D printers; you send them the design and get it a few days later for a few bucks.

AIO implies that the scanner is used during printing to detect and correct alignment and leveling issues. I'd throw down for the early bird price but I don't know enough about 3D printing to know if it's a good deal or not.

The only industries I see this hurting is model making (expensive Japanese kits) and games (Warhammer 40K, etc.). There's a lot of markup with these items but the customer base is too small for mass Chinese knock-offs.

Even if the size of the error is the same in both scanning and printing, it would be too unlikely that each scanning error in one direction away from the original shape would be offset by a printing error of equal magnitude and opposite direction. Essentially, for each surface point there would be a random walk consisting of random small steps in either direction. Random walks over time produce an average net distance that is proportional to the mean error and the square root of the number of steps. I guess, the square root of 20 is somewhere between 4 and 5, which would not be that large.

I'm curious why people are downvoting this comment? To Brainiac or... ?

More interested in a combination plastic-recycler/3d-printer. I know there are at least a couple of devices in the works that will shred soda and milk bottles and make them into usable filament but when you can feed the thing your garbage and use it to print usable "stuff", this will be really tempting and one step closer to a Diamond Age-style compiler/decompiler.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Every iteration of the copy would have a similar amount of random error from the print process since you're not re-scanning the copy and simply printing from the same file of the original scan. The degradation would not be cumulative.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Perhaps this would be a good method for testing 3d printer accuracy. Identify a set object to replicate, such as a bic pen cap or a common house key, copy/print, copy the copy/print, etc for 5 or 10 iterations and then measure the difference between the original and the end product. Then you could apply a real world comparison between 3d printers/scanners in regards to their accuracy.

Putting a scanner and printer in one seems like it could ease some of the pain of printing. For example, you could use the scanner to auto-calibrate the position of the print surface. You could also periodically scan the print job to make sure you haven't detached from the surface.

I don't know enough about how the scan works or how long it takes to know if it's feasible to do that in a timely fashion.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

It'd be dependent on the resolution of the scanner and the printhead. After some iteration, the two would converge and there'd be no more degradation than that.

I'm curious: if you start with one object, scan+copy it, make a copy of a copy (without using the initial object), make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...

What will happen after let's say 20 generations? Will you still have a decent copy of the initial object because the scanning/printing errors keep canceling each other out (on average)? Or will you end up with a complete mess?

Pretty sure it will tend towards the incalculable, maddening horror of the visage of a Great Old One.